An Authenticity Crisis

  Saturday, November 7, 2020

An Authenticity Crisis

What accompanies an authenticity crisis? The very thing that brought it about– idleness. And idleness breeds temptations by the flesh. But however we get there, we're there– what happens then? The prayer life despite being followed suddenly feels insincere. The very liturgy of the hours that upholds the public office of the church is suddenly scrutinized. If I pray with others, shouldn't I feel their sense of prayer? It's a call to prayer isn't it? Liturgy of the hours. What does liturgy mean? These things, I haven't thought before but I knew love wasn't present as a tendency to resentfulness occupied me. But what I need to realize is that the thing I'm projecting on others is the very thing I need for myself. The public prayer life always comes with the temptation to consider authenticity– when we pray with others we either are insecure if we are praying as "hard" as others or if others aren't praying as sincerely as us.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6)

And it's in the latter verse where I'm tripping up. I pray the liturgy of the hours or the rosary and it doesn't feel as rewarding. I'm just doing prayer rather than paying attention to that inward sense of God in the midst. My lips move but my heart hardens. I'm in that point where it's hard to believe God can forgive a person who sins not long after He's forgiven him. And I know that's the incredible love God has for us. I know that. I should want to participate in this love through prayer. But how I've let myself fallen that now prayer is an obstacle because I've (and am) taking it for granted. Can I go to confession in 30 minutes with this? I'm confused more than I am contrite. The answer is probably yes. The temptations are sneaky then, aren't they? Cunning almost. It has attacked the foundation I've built up to try and combat it (prayer) by zeroing in on my sin that started this whole week. But perhaps I've forgotten what Father Casey was saying. I should strive to live a holy life not solely a pure one, for purity comes from living a holy life. 

I should probably go, and I should probably walk instead of driving there. What have I done today that's worthy of the convenience of driving? I know I'm called there because there is where I can find myself and work on my relationship with God to a greater authenticity and with a greater assent of faith. 

I'm coming Lord, for even as I sin do I still continue to search you. Forgive your prideful sinner and humble him to your love, impart knowledge and courage to resist temptation so that he may participate in the love that You freely give. Amen.

the little air

  October 6, 2020

the little air

Ah, a sigh escaped me;

the little air left over,

that fleeting relief:

mystifying

silently, the little spirit dissipated;

a world vaporized

from being held over

a summery haze,

released into the flow

of turbulent waves ebbing

through a mess of particles in motion

transformed by tiny touches–

oh grace!

 of invisible states

unknown to the eye,

yet unconsciously felt

in every exhale that I

exist in ecstacy,

being-there,

the little air

I am

For a river falls

October 2, 2020

 For a river falls

For a river falls

to wintry torpor,

with spring winds over

summer sun's setting,

to gather anon.

For a river falls

from the ebbing shore, 

perennial twilight

timing our brief waves,

to become its source.

(Catholic) Christian thoughts on "Letting her be"

  September 22, 2020

(Catholic) Christian thoughts on "letting her be"

While running today and listening to "Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), I was caught up thinking about the call to evangelize (cf. Mark 16:15– "And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation'")– to be priest, prophet and king (CCC 783)– even as lay Christians. It is easy enough to live in a community of faith, where each person can (ideally) bring each other up and support the journey to faith. This is best exemplified in my life with my Bible studies and general encounters with my girlfriend Arie. For situations like this, it is easy to relate to my fellow faithful Christians. We all have a common orientation to the good that is epitomized in the trinity as father, son (word) and spirit (breath). 

It is of much more considerable difficulty in responding appropriately to the call to preach the gospel in secular society, of which make up general life outside of the people of faithful I know. Not only is the difference in orientation on what "good" is different (in fact it is respectfully and arguably diminished in secular short term thinking), it is difficult already to communicate the faith (even if it is my own) to others. 

This is of considerable question to me as a Catholic (as opposed to other denominations), because the faith teaches us of the urgency to seek others to conversion. As far as I've experienced in my albeit limited exposure to weekly Sunday worship in Arie's Victory church, it seems that the focus is on strengthening the Christian communities and to pray for other people to be awakened by their faith. I support this rather brandished statement by last week's sermon that quoted theologians saying that our faith was imparted to us by God and is not a result of our doings and that everything we do and are in relation to God comes from Him because we are saved by faith alone.

While Catholics actually also agree that faith alone is necessary to be saved and that faith is given to us by God, the emphasis of mission in Catholicism leads us to center our attention on what's next, often citing the often not defended James 2:26: For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.". In our discussion I think Arie concedes this point to me, even without having to rely on our own denominations, that works are indeed essential if only to emphasize and reflect our faith that God has graced us with. As far as I can be certain of my Catholic faith, it is of our mission to spread the good news especially to the poor and those suffering. Where does this begin? I'd like to think it starts with the family, and of most concern are my sisters, even my older sister already married with children. 

It is certainly much easier to rely on authority to communicate and remind my sisters of what the faith is. Certainly it is a safe enough position to take. However, authority only works when the authority is authorized by who they are instructing. In another sense, Mica and Anya have to look to me for something they recognize as needing advice on. In my scenario with them, this is not necessarily the case. Mica's mantra has focused on "you do you", probably not to the extent of doing serious harm unto oneself but allowing a kind of "learn from your mistakes" kind of approach. While it is agreeable to let someone "learn from their mistakes", I have now come to the position to disagree on being neutral about anything. Being neutral means to take a stance saying at worst I don't "care" about what you decide, often adding the existentialist "so long as you truly choose it but be aware of the ramifications". The ramifications of leaving it up to the "individual" is a symptom of modernity's failed ideal still being spun, that "man is the measure of all things"; in other words, relativism. 

But in our specific case it doesn't actually have to be this idealistic. I think such ideas have penetrated into our conscience entrusted into us by our mother, who often let us to decide on our own. This is just only part of the story, because I indeed have also fallen away from the faith and searching for truth. What we often forget is that mom puts trust in the institutions that take care of us, from La Salle and Woodrose to BSM and to our colleges. They in a sense outsourced the parenting, often preferring to be moral guidance if sought rather than being active. They leave us alone in that sense. 

So it would be no surprise that my sisters and I have adopted that kind of idea. I'm still privy to such a solution, I think trying to figure it out on your own is a good thing. But only if we actually know we have something to figure out. If we blatantly ignore what exactly it is we are being left alone to do, then most would just realize "I'm free to do anything". That kind of idea is dangerous and actually misses the point of this idea of "letting be". Heidegger for one has advocated a philosophical "letting be", giving up trying to appropriate "being" and instead letting it come and preferring to describe it poetically (while still being somewhat philosophical). But back to this point of contention, Mica's problem for me seems to be not that she is solely "free to do anything", but such a statement comes out of feeling that she was done injustice for her life trajectory which was given to her. She likes living in New York and being amongst other peers, "free" from our parents' parenting in a sense. And yet she knows that in order to fulfill such a contract, she "must become a lawyer" for the family. 

While such idea is commendable, when she talks to me about it, it feels twisted, almost resentful, and kind of certainly not the kind of "free to do anything" ideal that most Americans seems to want in their interpretation of liberty. The free to do anything clause was in a sense, her giving into indulgences because of the hardship and work she has to do to stay there. It's kind of a vicious cycle here, then. And what's even weirder is that whenever she needs help with something and asks for it, she doesn't really want to learn the reason why but just the "how" to do something. I used to get irritated at this, because the hyper-practicality makes me feel more like a tool rather than a person giving time to explain and teach. It's like giving into an opposite version of "do as I say, not as I do" , making it "do as I do, not as I say". 

But I ask myself now how this whole analysis is relevant? For one, I'm back here in DC and Mica's alone in New York. I quickly "left her" as soon as I got the chance to in that sense. I indeed given up (for which I am remorseful for), thinking that she couldn't (or wouldn't) understand where I'm coming from, especially with the whole debate on being free to do what you want. When we discuss and then eventually argue, it seems that it's hard for Mica to fight with me honestly because she may not be sure of herself either. What she is sure of is the idle talk of ideals in colleges now "people are free to come to their own interpretations about anything". It's such an obvious statement... of course people are free to their own interpretations about anything. What's lacking in this statement? Well a moral judgement. And when there is something lacking, people can attach things. For example: "people are free to their own [wrong] interpretations about anything". But that's not the ideal at hand here in this ordinary thought. In fact, it's more like people's own opinions are all right in their own way. 

Here we have yet another partial truth. When people feel strongly about something, it is indeed probably true in some respect. However as a Christian I'm led to remember what sin is: Sin comes from love as well but love for something that is "lesser", be it "less good" or straight up "wholly evil". Choosing something less good in the strictest sense is considered evil especially if one knows that there's a better chance. I have to keep myself accountable for this as well. Here is yet another weird attack on truth by partial and unthoughtful truisms. Relativism is dangerous and paradoxical in this sense, especially when used as an actual way of life and not just an argument, because it advocates to do away with something that is better. Sure it is hard to ascertain it, and even the most studied of people can be wrong despite advocating for the good. But morality shouldn't be politicized; morality is for all.

This is what I mean on how "letting be" can get out of hand, and is the object of my confusion here, of which I only hope to pray for being graced with as I continue my own studies and my own journey in faith. I acknowledge my limited knowledge and understanding here is rather the probable reason. 

An excerpt from Ratzinger's book struck me yesterday and I told Arie about it. It seemed obvious to her, but I went about summarizing his analysis of the parable of the two brothers (as he prefers over the parable of the prodigal son).  I just opened my Bible now and read it from Luke 15:11-31. The parable, in short, speaks of a son who asked for his share of his father's fortune to go out into the city. His father obliges and he goes out but spends every penny on it in "loose living", which led him to eventually finding work in a famine stricken area as a swine herd's help, happy to eat the pods used to feed swine. He realizes how wrong he is and resolves to make things right by confessing to his father "Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants" (Luke 15: 18-19). And when he did so, the father interjected him and forgave him, celebrating the return of his son. 

I reflected on this for the past 2 days and thought of Mica or Anya or anyone really. Are they also in their own prodigal son/daughter scenario? Should this be a foundation for "letting them be"? But as soon as I think this, I'm humbled myself of why Ratzinger prefers the parable to be called the parable of the two sons or the forgiving father– the other son is complacent and even resentful of his brother being forgiven. This other brother too, though so "steeped" in the comfort of the faith, was still in the wrong when he acted in that way. But the loving father is sure to forgive this son too, assuring him "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found" (Luke 15:31-32). So I too, having reconciled my faith (and still in the process of reconciling) must always be aware of getting too complacent within the faith. This is why I think mission is important, because it challenges one's faith to being active as we are called to be in the world– "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15: 19). And not only this but to be empowered by grace, and to cultivate it faith, so that "when the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). 

And there's even more to the story for me to identify with as well. I too was the prodigal son in that I fell away from my "home", living a largely agnostic secularist life while in college, but always kind of drawn to the idea of truth, which I thought the roman catholic church too rule-based (just as Ben Gibbard thought) to actually help me access it based on structure alone. But when I returned to the faith, oh how rich it is to read and be educated in catechesis. It is indeed the religious education that enriches all of the sacraments we can find boring. 

So where does this leave me at least in my state of questioning this strategy to "let her be"? I can't merely just say "it's her life so she should do what she wants" any more than I can say that for myself. The good life is indeed the better life, and I'm always reminded by Pope John Paul II's take on freedom: "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought". 

From the beginning, "man and woman; he created them" (Genesis 1:27) to have a personal relationship with Him, for which we have the freedom to freely choose God who is love and who is of utmost goodness. And it is such then that my resolve is to turn my attitude towards another not in terms of just cranking out a strategy such as "let her be", but to consider carefully each situation so that justice and what is due to each person is given. The slightest of grace that I can give in the form of light reminders can go a long way in helping them realize on their own freedom and not from my coercion/persuasion, that they freely chose the good. It is then that I turn to furthering more this idea of freedom and truth coming from that famous quote by actually reading the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, from which Pope John Paul II's teaching for the Catholic Church on freedom and truth is most officially and most authoritatively preached. 

On Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenology of Faith via Givenness

  August 24, 2020

Couple thoughts about Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenology of Faith via Givenness

A photo of the Georgetown Waterfront from a run I had

It is easy to do a Bible study and to say that God speaks to me through the readings, that faith is a "given". But really, what does that mean? Do we take faith to be given as "a given", or a dogmatic assumption? I was thinking about this today on my walk. How do I engage with other people such as atheists or those of other faiths, if we don't take (theologically) faith as a given? 

To define the parameter of faith here includes the assumption of a God. And I agree with this. However, I think this is a conclusion of the finding that faith is given. The philosopher-theologian Jean-Luc Marion takes this question up in his work through God without Being to the series that begins with Givenness and Revelation. Contrary to Heidegger, who thinks that Dasein is the primary and basic pre-theoretical feature of Being, Marion provides a correction that the character of "givenness" is the beginning. As far as I understand it, this is going back to Descartes, whom all of the aforementioned phenomenologists seem to need to take their shot at. But the context is that Descartes begins with a radical position from a radical method: from doubting everything he could doubt, he comes up with the theory "cogito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. 

Marion, in Descartes' Passive Thought , focuses more on Descartes' other conclusion "Ego Sum Ego Existo", I am, therefore I exist. While I have yet to complete his work, I have found from his analysis of the 6th meditation and the passions that Descartes' position does not fundamentally doubt the body's role in all this. That is, when we doubt everything we could possibly doubt, it is not so certain that Descartes doubts the body. Sure he can say that maybe a demon messed with him and made him think he had a body, but the characteristic of having a body is not removed from the action of thought. "I think (with a body) that I am, therefore I exist (with a body)". It is possible, from Marion's reading, that it was just unquestionable despite Descartes' methodology rooted in what was coming to be known as the virtue of science (questioning all assumptions); that the assurance and quality of having a body is embedded into how he even comes up with it. This sounds a lot like the kind of territory that the premiere phenomenologist of the body, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, was going on about. And this makes sense, given that even he returns to Descartes in his later lectures. Of course, this could just be another assumption unquestioned, but that's the sort of fundamental ground of analyzing the phenomena that phenomenologists are interested in (intentionality a la Husserl). Science, not even philosophy of science, wouldn't be that committed to digging that deep in questioning their assumptions because this puts them in the territory of philosophy (this word is used rather pejoratively in this context).

With the centrality of the body rooted in the primer to modern philosophy, phenomenology seems to be making progress here towards many applications such as identity, health, illness, etc. But with Marion's own center of his phenomenology, that of "givenness", roots one who walks along his path of thought with theology infused with phenomenology. The character of givenness– the phenomena that we encounter having the quality of being given– invokes or implies a background idea of a "giver". In contrast with Early Heidegger's Protagoras-esque Man is the Measure of all means path of thought in Being and Time, Marion paves a path found in the more humbled (feeling, with stubborn hermit inclinations, the consequences of his idealistic mistake registering in the National Socialist German Workers party) Later Heidegger, who takes a more theological approach to the question of being. 

For Marion, as with Descartes' Passive thought (thinking with the body), being is the characteristic of givenness that we take as fundamental and that we don't ponder about much in our everyday existence. The world of the given here has yet to take a definite theological tone, however. One can merely assert that the characteristic of givenness may be just that, a characteristic of experience. Evolutionary interpretations may take that to be just part of our genetic coding or wiring left over from a previous trait that, either by coincidence (vestigial) or by deliberate natural selection, we would be more "oriented" to that approach. However, this goes beyond the scope of phenomenology, which focuses on the phenomena (the things themselves) and how we experience it. In other words, we would follow Husserl and "bracket it out" (epoché), and put that reductionist explanation aside, especially if it doesn't help our phenomenological investigation. Such "orientation" may as well be characterized for the religious as how God "[formed] man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). And I didn't intend to connect the concept of ground (post-modernity's bread and butter) and the phenomenology of breath (see Havi Carel, Frederik Svenaeus, etc. on illness analyses); but I certainly thought it while typing it.

So, what now with givenness? Well, describing being within the ground of givenness, one can take in Jesus' theological stride to make Simon Peter, the doubting apostle, the "rock [He] will build [His] church" with and whom to give the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19), and reflect on this phenomenologically. While we may doubt that which is given (be it from confusion, anxiety, or existential inquiry), Christianity argues faith arises out of a gift by recognizing the giver of the given as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Paul writes "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8) and such faith enters us through love as "God is love" (1 John 4). This is where Marion ties up how the description of givenness is fulfilled wholly by Catholic-Christian doctrine as the "gift" is manifested in the Eucharist, the bread as the body of Christ, and of the Church as the body of Christ instituted by Christ (see Called to Communion, Pope Emeritus Ratzinger). This is also where Marion turns from philosophy (via phenomenology) to theology, by taking "This Jesus [as] the stone which, rejected by you builders, has become the chief stone supporting all the rest" (Acts 4:11), and by fusing phenomenologically the given body with the Christian soul, giving kind of a dualistic twist but more a hermeneutical interpretation rooted in the ahistory of the Bible and the history of man's existence. 

At this point Marion takes up the theologian's humility and would take his theology just to be mere applied philosophy/science, that is, applying "reason" to discover more about God's creation/design for us as creatures. All of this can be undertaken without the scholastic acrobatics that Thomism, while important, because it draws upon the investigation into subjectivity of faith that began with St. Augustine and continued with Pascal, Kierkegaard and then initially with really early Heidegger (back when he was in the seminary); there's likely many in between but I'm not aware of them, I admit. Because an investigation into faith begets an investigation into the giver, which then leads back to the given; we come to know God so that we may know ourselves, as St. Augustine says– Noverim Te, Noverim me.

On Badiou's In Praise of Love

April 30, 2020

Blog 8: On Badiou's "In Praise of Love"

It's half past midnight and I have just finished reading Alain Badiou's "In praise of love" in one sitting. I had a mind to write my initial impressions but have come to type these letters now to reflect more closely on the nature of my philosophical drives. It is captivating for Badiou's rather different translation of Book V of the Republic to let socrates speak:

Anyone who doesn't take love as their starting point will never discover what philosophy is about.

And I'm led to reflect more deeply on this because this is precisely what I got into this whole philosophy business (or hobby) in the first place! It was in fact Jackie's inquisitiveness and curiosity, while in the throes of love, that has seeded in me the origin of my awakening– love was the seed, the thoughts and actions that ensued, its conditions. And I think that what led me to this book, that analysis of that Rick and Morty episode on online dating by Wisecrack (see embed video below), got Badiou wrong. I was led to believe that Badiou was philosophizing saying that love is about tenacity and endurance. And boy that was definitely not what Badiou is saying at all! Well he does say it, but only in part. And taking the part to represent the whole is a dangerous affair. With Wisecrack, it appears to serve their purposes in explaining the critique given by the episode of Rick and Morty– to shit on online dating apps just as Badiou did on online dating sites. But this is where Wisecrack stops Badiou rather abruptly. Where they emphasize love's longevity (which primarily attracted me), they fail to mention this longevity as more than just the mood of escaping the "happily ever after" framework.

What they fail to mention is the more profound beginnings Badiou alludes to, of which Husserl christens philosophy as the science of conceptions that requires a perpetual beginner– that is that love is "minimal communism"; love is a "two-scene", love is ultimately a "truth process". These concepts, albeit fairly new to me, resonate in me because they help clarify the kind of universality of love that I got to realize by this artful project. I came here on Wisecrack's quote thinking I can see if I can identify with this love as tenacity, trying to justify what I went through with Jackie as being precisely that– of a particular instance. But I was wrong; and glad to be.

Love, as I understand him, is an affirmation of the eternal that is juxtaposed in the temporal life. Just like philosophy, love is a perpetual beginner. As Badiou quotes Sarkovsky, Love requires reinvention. In such a way, perhaps I can add that love is itself a philosophy. Moreso, the philosophy of love is indeed the philosophy of philosophy qua loving wisdom.

I wonder about my thomistic friends/professors in SMC who reaffirm Aquinas' mantra that Love is to will the Good of the other, with the underlying Christian theme of the givenness of love, which has been ever so powerful on me as my Catholicism buds with the help of Augustine's Confessions.

And it seems to me that my general point, my purpose and driving force behind my pursuit in philosophy– into questions of ontology, phenomenology, existentialism– all is driven from this fundamental seed of love. And I've expressed in numerous blogs how I'm grateful to Jackie for implanting philosophy into me but perhaps I can recant this now and offer a clearer thought– Jackie helped the conditions for my philosophical soul to emerge, like fertilizer or water or sunlight. She became my conception of the "Good", as Iris Murdoch's conception of a good love speaks.

And it's now clear to me, at least in this moment, that most thematically, I end up thinking about love in the philosophy I read. Iris Murdoch x Simone Weil's conception of love as a distinct form of attention held up by our moral/ontological commitments to the good or lack thereof (making "bad love" as a neglect of the Good, fitting in the Christian framework). Aquinas/Augustine frameworks of love in terms of the transcendent Lord and Christ for us. The existentialist counterargument of a secular (in one extreme) or humanist existential form of love.

And I think Badiou was able to help push these thoughts I've reflected on love further. And in good timing. With the chains of love that I've been bounded on are loosened and my existential crisis averted, I can now see more authentically how this fits into my life and how Badiou's conception seems to be at least a more clear definition of this sense of love that I have experienced, and perhaps haven't given up on (or have? his distinction between friendship and love becomes murky to me when considering a love lost but recovered as friendship?).

Either way, the 108 or less pages that I read from front to back was clear and stimulating enough for me to be able to think those thoughts he has written to impart onto my own consciousness. There is much thought to be thunk that stimulates my brain and soul to meditate on further. For as a Christian I'm obliged to read other secular works in the light of Christ, and hence in the light of love (qua agape); and I can begin to sketch those details in my head already. But in the intermediary of this now, I can understand the framework in the appreciation of its technicality– of the work's ability to synthesize conceptions of love with its own past conceptions and also fused with my own notions. It is profound but not overly so, because it takes its stance on love with much care and especially with its reflection on theater and how philosophers at the end of the day are actors (albeit sometimes unaware of it).

The overall performance of it, and the phenomenological underpinnings, leads to the description of love phenomenologically, of which despite Heidegger only mentioned in passing in a citation of Derrida's book on him, that strengthens the hermeneutic project that the hermit Heidegger had begun on his own, that has affected the generations and beyond after him. This talk on love goes down to the level of questioning being itself, of which I'm particularly interested in as an academic and truth-pursuing exercise. I keep saying I agree with Badiou on most parts because I'm reticent to dive into its metaphysical commitments, but am thankful for the lines he draws on what he is talking about and his explanation of how he uses the jargon he uses, which he humbly acknowledges but can't seem to not use.

The name of my game is being, that of which medicine has practically and metaphysically supplements. The way Badiou talks about love as truth seeking and how it is "two not one" and all, helps me interpret it phenomenologically in my own way– that I see love as yet another manifestation, or dimension of being. And as the conclusion which I think I'm to arrive at but have yet to trace a line to– that being is time (as Heidegger claims in "Time and Being")– becomes more clear, the more that I'm renewed to pursue it again with Socrates' requirement in mind for philosophy. Not merely a sense of wonder but also with love as the basis and starting point of that sense of wonder.

Dogmatism beware, as I tread and tiptoe between the lines of blasphemy and doxa; I risk the failings of both in pursuit of the truth that love, philosophy, human consciousness, takes as its meaning. And in the end, it seems that Christianity may win at the end, as I think I'll inevitably admit as descript: love is given. And what is given, must imply the giver. This win, which drives the whole "comedy" gamut of Christianity, that love wins at the end, is not mutually exclusive, I think, with the human flourishing, of exploring concepts as they circulate and exist in our space and time, because ultimately I still see this whole adventure as part of the journey towards revelation and truth via Faith, Hope and Charity, either way. I can only hope that grace can nudge me in the right direction before it's too late (and I mean too late not temporally as in after x amount of years and x amount of days, but rather the orientation of the soul willingly losing its trajectory).

on Sincerity is Scary

April 14, 2020

Blog 7: on Sincerity is Scary

I messaged my long estranged older sister with a belated birthday message, to the ire of my little sisters who thought I put too much effort in it. I replied "sincerity is scary", quoting the 1975's tried and true single from their latest album "A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships". I then proceeded to listen to the song, having not listened to it for months now. I had instead been shuffling a playlist of the songs I listened to in high school, trying to find a piece of myself that was lost. 

As I listen to the song (and subsequently the whole album), I can hear a little bit past the 1975's rather outlandish brand of pretentious yet catchy lyrics about postmodernism, kitsch, and what not. There was a theme that suddenly clicked when in "love it if we made it", Healy sings "modernity has failed us, but I love it if we made it". This kind of critical reflection is both regretful but at the same time authentic in affirming the saying 'love it if we made it'. This rather pithy remark of blasé optimism captures the kind of mood that brings about a nihilistic yet Camusian brand of absurdism: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart." (see Myth of Sisyphus). Although Camus ends this essay the sentence after this with "One must imagine sisyphus happy", that kind of idealism that powered the existentialist movement would be lost to us living in our present age. 

And this is exactly the kind of thing that defines what the 1975 is more than their reference to Kerouac's On the Road. Their music which sounds outside its time, which harkens back to exactly that age (late 1970s-80s) that tries to use its platform to challenge, synthesize and question the norm, is a tough balancing act. The melodies are catchy and even sometimes outlandish to the point that some people sing along to it anyway like the previous generation sang to Anthony Kiedis' Californication ("psychic spies from china try to steal your mind's elation"?). So in a way the general following that professes to "like" the 1975 would be people who chant their mantra without much thought besides the feeling of the hook: "and I love it if we made it"; yeah that makes sense let's chant it again! This is pushed back by their die hard fans who profess to relate to the band's mission, creating some kind of youth movement. But the 1975 are too vague to be profound, instead fueling the agendas of their box fans in the general "air" of their mannerisms from british accents to using the strange words they use in regular conversation. Emotionally enflamed, a 1975 concert would ignite a die hard crowd with an paradox: each one having their own relation to their understanding of what the 1975 is trying to tell everyone while also contradicting the guy to their right or the woman two rows ahead.

But I am giving them (both the band and the fans) too much credit. It is rather the central theme of love that the 1975 takes as their muse, which they situate their nostalgia (but not) brand in our present time. There seems to always be some kind of other nostalgia they are opposing though, so they don't embrace nostalgia in general. For example, in "Nana", Healy sings about his grandma's ("nana") death, grieving with this bittersweet tune: "I don't like it now you're dead, it's not the same when I scratch my own head, I haven't got the nails for it". Following up this rather morbid tune is setting up the opposition: "I know that God doesn't exist, and all of the love that surrounded it, but I like to think you hear me sometimes"; which is a flagrantly poetic statement of atheism. It is painted as nostalgia but also as a revisionist nostalgia, the kind that obviously beckons the "viewing the world through rose tinted glasses" cliché; a kind of confirmation bias for a dusty memory stowed in a closet, forgotten to be moved into the even dustier attic. 

Yet the solution in this song isn't even a viable alternative to the religious life. Healy suggests poetry and songwriting to help him deal with death: "melody line for you tonight... think that's how to make things feel alright. Made in my room this simple tune, always keep me close to you. The crowds will sing, the voices ring and it's like you never left; but I'm bereft you see, I think you can tell– I haven't been doing too well...". But even then it's sad but perhaps he is a realist– wallowing in a sad reality at least is living in reality for what it is. But even this falls apart– he's still "bereft" despite the empty response he gets when he tries to call his nana to him (in spite of the chanting crowds). The only optimistic take home one can take is that reflection is a somber solution that can help one get by. It's "authentic" and "real".

But really what is description without action? As C.S. Lewis is often quoted: "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil". In our secular time, this may seem rather decrepit and outdated while also making a little bit of sense if we remove the religious connotations to "devil" and just use the colloquial term. But even the colloquial term has hidden within it the etymological history of slandering and attacking. Rooted in this term is that idea that if people don't have normative rules that they refine through education, they are just reinforcing the nature to debase another person for one's own gain. 

And so, even after coming back to the 1975 after a trite counter remark to my little sister's comment, I can feel that pull towards the world that the 1975 wants us to be in– a boxed echo chamber where "love" is mistaken for lust (see Tootimetootime) or even abandoned as an ideal altogether (see change of heart). A lot of the songs that the 1975 put out in their discography seem to follow a kind of continuity: "The City" is referenced in "A Change of Heart", for example; further reinforcing this emo-sisyphean approach.

In a positive light, the 1975's music is a kind of therapy session for the self, where one feels comfortable to speak their mind without judgment. But this can be seen positively only if we squint at seeing it this way (and even then find it hard to believe); because they blast out or have the vocals still in front of a slow ballad (Be my mistake, Nana, She lays down). One who does this self-therapy, painting emotions and really "dwelling" in it is Grouper (see clearing, I'm clean now and holding). Although in fairness Grouper has a far less reach than the net that the 1975 casts; must one compromise intelligibility for popularity? I don't think so. And it pains me to write this because I do like The 1975 because I also like to dwell while also sing a long to catchy and happy sounding melodies (primed by my love for Death Cab for Cutie), because the paradox of comedy in the light of tragedy seems more real than merely being a sad boi about it (which one usually progresses from and gets tired of eventually). 

So as a band, the 1975 are pretty solid. But they can't teach me anything that I don't already know. They can be clever while never having any value other than being a point of reflection for why their brand of pseudo-sorrowful comfort beats seemed like a good solution to escape it all, but when out of it, you realize that they never really provided any new insight– they are such beautiful post-scripts to more serious work yet so unaware of it.

The Red Clearing (Poem)

March 28, 2020

Blog 6: The Red Clearing

When I think about her,

I feel as if I’m picking at a scar that hasn’t healed,

even if barely visible on the outside;

covered up, hidden, veiled in disinterest,

the wound is dormant unless prodded or picked at or accidentally palpated.

Stimulated, she comes alive,

spilling out reddish hues all over this reminiscent mood.

Flashes of those crimson moments–

a bouquet of McDonald’s french fries,

the ruddy roller coasters at Six Flags,

the sound of Death Cab at the Red Rocks Casino after 3 hours on a road trip–

all these injected into my thoughts, sweet and sanguinous.

But then all at once this glimpse evaporated,

leaving behind a stench of saccharine copper.

Those shades that tinted my blood-shot eyes,

florid;

the color of your fiery voice,

a ghostly burgundy;

and your carnelian figure,

singed into a scarlet silhouette.

I can count each of these cardinal contours

that swirl around this cinnabar heart,

crystallized like a stubborn ruby

or bruised like a cherry chestnut,

because the glistening lens of love oh so lacquered in russet,

reflects its spectrum of passion,

ranging from the deepest wavelengths of the chocolate cosmos

to the brightest of carmine celebrations.

And as time flares on,

I’ve learned to contrast more than just the fruity pleasures of nostalgia

from the bitter pigments of bereavement and maroon resentment.

I could better tell the difference between the subtleties of sorrows that slumber within.

The pain is like grabbing a rose by its stem,

the fire red pang from the thorns that gushes,

instead of breathing in the savory scent of the roses;

a sudden, unexpected and unwanted attention.

Or the hurt is nothing at all;

the sparseness of a home once lived in–

a ruins of a once imperial castle.

Heartbreak is like a phantom limb of some sort,

it is a fallen redwood tree in the clearing of a forest.

My day to day life usually involves being in the thicket, so to speak,

of walking in the shade of the woodland,

caught up in the sound of leaves rustling, twigs snapping and birds singing–

all shrouded in a mist of indifference.

But once in a while,

I stumble upon that open patch of unpatched land

and can see the ambient stars above,

gazing at me and our fallen redwood tree.

That giant one in the horizon,

casting its red dawn on the glade,

engulfs me in remembrance:

dyed with madder,

blushing pink,

saturated with those shades of sadness,

and overwhelmed by its rainbow of regret.

Did I not tend to our garden with green thumbs?

Did you forget to pull out the weeds?

Did we neglect to water our redwood tree?

Every time this happens,

I retreat back into the bushes,

more and more knowledgeable of the intricacies of that sacred hollow log,

but also less and less willing to lie exposed and naked to the sky’s garnet gaze.

I miss the trees for the forest,

willingly clothed in ambivalence.

So I wander aimlessly as the days creep by,

until I inevitably lose my bearings,

knowing that I’ll eventually trip once more

into that prickly emptiness of blinding light

and its cryptic chromaticisms I’ll soon be able to more fully distinguish.

I’ll get more used to this cycle of sharpness and numbness,

become more acutely aware of this throbbing tenderness:

referred pain from an aching heart living in the remains of love.

And that’s okay,

that is the history of this place I come to know as my body.

It is the context for which I put my palms together to pray.

20 Years of We Have the facts and We're Voting Yes

03/21/2020

Blog 5: 20 Years of We Have the facts and We're Voting Yes

Today marks the 20th anniversary of Death Cab for Cutie's 2nd studio album "We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes". To many die hard fans, this is considered the best album that Death Cab has ever put out. The finer details of how great this album is may be of value to a very small pocket of the Death Cab community and is thus likely to be largely of no interest to the mainstream. However, for those people that were and are being affected by it, there is definitely a reason for following along the legacy it began. 

I think that We Have the Facts lies at the heart of what Death Cab for Cutie is all about. It is the album where you can listen to a band that has found its footing in their songwriting; where they commit to a sound that is uniquely theirs. We can see Ben Gibbard's poignant story telling ability of very specific moments of his life interlaced with melodies that sound happy but saccharine. Couple this with Chris Walla's contribution to the production of the album his intricate guitar work alongside Ben's, mediated by Nick Harmer's best bass work. 

This album was released before I will Follow You Into The Dark or Transatlanticism, both mainstream successes (the former a single and the latter a treasured LP) that put Death Cab on the map. The pressure to record and write wasn't driven by momentum but rather from a commitment to the arts. Ben Gibbard drums on most of the songs in this album because their previous drummer had quit the band for a more stable line of work. From being a hobby band with a quirky name, Death Cab at this point committed to a serious project, wanting to see how things play out with the chemistry and synergy of its band members. 

With all this historical context, We Have the Facts' spirit and driving force is established; but what about the content itself? How should one listen to the album? Well, the album is widely accepted to be a concept album; an album where all the songs contribute to the whole album, centered around a theme. Many tout the concept of this album to represent a story about a "ruined relationship", essentially making it a breakup album. I hesitate to commit to this, especially when you listen to the album trying to convince yourself that it is the case. But there is precedent, of course, and remains one way to interpret the album. Before Genius lyrics was a thing, songmeanings.com was the place to discuss lyrics and the song in general (those "good ol' days").

I imagine the "breakup" interpretation to go along these lines– the first song, "Title track" sets the stage for shaky foundations in the relationship. That ending mantra at the outro, "I rushed this, we moved too fast, tripped into the guest room", sums up this sentiment. 

Next, we have "The Employment Pages", where the narrator tells of the circumstances the relationship finds itself in "occupying the cracks of the urban streets".  This song would thus be providing more context on the setting but witholding any direct sentiments about the relationship, instead focusing on the frustration on finding employment (playing music so loud the neighbors ask them to turn it down). This follows "Title Track"'s sense of foreboding. We have a relationship that began from a one night stand that was doomed to fail. "And it was true that I was truly failing". What makes the "breakup album" interpretation strong here is because this line on its own merely speaks frustration about not finding work but is more cathartic when considered in what's to come. But the narrator is restless while being "Idle now, [he rearranges] the furniture as [she] sleeps", trying to be productive. We can see the female counterpart in the relationship as not very active, and by a stretch, indifferent to the scenario. She was "gone and [the narrator] was home calling around" for work. 

Connecting the dots

The third song, For What Reason, finally comes to the fore, building up from a soft piano/guitar intro to a loud and brazen declaration "This won't be the last you hear of me, it's just the start!". We get a clue to the off-stage breakup and how this song denotes that "bitterness I can't foresee". We can infer that this was not a clean breakup– she was apologizing with "phrases like 'I thought you knew' while keeping me in hot pursuit". She has moved on, perhaps rather quickly to someone else, while leading the narrator on all along. And the narrator had to connect the dots, "tracing the plot finds" to imagine "skin touching [each other's] skin" and how "absence follows". For the breakup interpretation, we still don't have the whole picture: okay she did a dick move by leading him on, maybe keeping him as a backup but what do the previous songs have to do with this? Well, Title Track establishes her allure: "I must admit I was charmed by your advances, your advantage left me helplessly into you"; and despite his best efforts! "I tried my best to keep my distance from your dress but call-response overturns convictions every time". And the Employment pages metaphorically shows how much effort the narrator put into improving himself despite "truly failing". This third song solidifies his resolve he sings "In the end, I win every time as ink remains. Sour tastes prevail as you play back the tape machine". He is the poet of this story that everyone will listen to, including her: the song is catchy and sweet but bitter and resentful; which again, is what I think makes Death Cab as a band.

Lowell, Massachusetts 

We have next the fourth song– Lowell, Ma. This song personally has one of my favorite and most intricate bass lines of Death Cab's repertoire. Seems to me that this song was a precursor to a lot of songs about how places have changed (see Why You'd Want to Live Here, Gold Rush, You Moved Away, Teardrop Windows; and to some extent Crooked Teeth, Stable song/Stability, Good help is so hard to find). But I digress. The music is very road-trippy and catchy, which helps drive the point of the lyrics: someone is leaving Lowell, MA. In the Breakup Interpretation, we take this to be the narrator's ex or maybe the narrator himself. This song plays to the "Employment Pages" trope of showing rather than telling. We get a couple of lines describing the city's "cityscapes crumbling... skyscrapers sink into the ground". But the two main catchy lines that repeat over and over, "I thought that you had come to expect more" and "Don't go holding out on me now". Metaphors abound, the city itself could be a metaphor for the relationship "crumbling". There's nothing left, not even the music from the radio towers as he drives away. Is this the song that he's referring to in For What Reason? Possibly but it's very tongue in cheek (I mean all of the songs themselves are, aren't they?). With this set down, we move on to the next song. (Though I do admit that this is where Jack Kerouac was born and we know Ben likes him a lot, especially On the Road and Big Sur, much like the 1975 does but I digress).

Interstate 405

405 is the 5th song in the album, extending the "Lowell, Ma" driving metaphor interstate. Meditating on the 405 interstate, the narrator takes the highway to be a metaphor for their relationship. The first line of both verses provide these moments of commentary: "I took the 405 and drilled a stake down into your center and stated that it's never ever been better than this" and "Misguided by the 405 'cause it lead me to an alcoholic summer, I missed the exit to your parents' house hours ago". Here's another instance of the particularity of Ben's songwriting: the 405 is very confusing to drive in and I imagine pre-Waze/Google maps it'd be a nightmare for someone not seasoned in its twists and turns. This is the path of the relationship that the two take and the narrator plays with, following with lyrics harkening back to the bitter resentment of For What Reason– "You keep twisting the truth, that keeps me thrown askew". Underlying these poignant remarks, more narration of how the relationship went is sung "I hung my favorite shirt on the floorboard, wrinkled up from pulling, pushing and tasting, tasting" and "red wine and the cigarettes, hide your bad habits underneath the patio, patio". The mismatch and masks that was done to keep up appearances, give small hints of vice and inauthenticity. Driving away seemed to be the solution in Lowell, Ma, but 405 pushes back, haunting the activity with wavering regret (the bass lines intermittent booming helps highlight this). 

More on Car Metaphors

The idea of driving once again continues in the slow Little Fury Bugs. In the context of the breakup interpretation, this is a song where the narrator is addressing his ex. There's usually a point of contention here about this because the song seems to be about opportunistic fake friends, or what Ben refers to as "casual friends". But I think this is only one side of the song. The narrator's observations about these friends that only remember her name are juxtaposed with his growing feeling of dissatisfaction in the relationship. What makes the song powerful is how these feelings are portrayed musically. The first verse all the way through the chorus and second verse has just guitars playing a slow, sleepy tune, reflecting the boredom of these "casual" friends and their superficial intentions. The second verse represents the other side, the dissatisfied side. The narrator felt more at home in the back of the car– that is, these trips were more homelike than home, which we could infer as the core of his relationship. He lulls about this trip with the most watered down description: "through the evening the engine kept on, until we hit Chicago and decided to stop". It's at this point where the chorus, the initial dismissive thought "but you're always on time, so", is repeated with a loud kick drum. This is repeated twice before the guitars take over to lull the tune back to the beginning again (similar to Title Track's outro). 

"Company call" can refer to the director addressing the "company" during rehearsals or after a show (as opposed to a curtain call where the company comes at the end and bows to the audience)

And we've arrived at the climax of the album: Company Calls. The song begins with a short dancing drum and guitar introduction before the narrator sings one of the most bittersweet and catchy melodies in the album. It's honestly hard to describe this song because it's better to just listen to it but here we go. The song is sonically very "hi-fi" (like in the second verse of Title track where before the recording sounded "lo-fi", meant to talk about the transition into the new millenium in a very tongue-in-cheek way as it was released in the turn of the century). Because of this hi-fi, it sounds like a proper indie-rock-pop sound, where the narrator is addressing the general audience (while obviously referring to the ex). The lyrics, at first are different than the previous intimate ones. Maybe this was the one that he was referring to in For What Reason. But as a whole, the story follows that the narrator heard of his ex getting engaged. We have another style of lyrical writing that Ben uses that is more "show" than tell. These lyrics seem more a collection of distinct writings, pithy expressions that describe how he felt upon receiving word, with the chorus being the only one with direct reference to the institution of marriage qua "mock-shrine". Perhaps these were thoughts he had meant to send in the postcard he'd send, expressing the intention to "keep [his] distance 'cause the complications cloud it all". But just like Title Track, which I think this song has a spiritual connection with, he's not over it, with the most indulgent confession: "Your wedding figurines: I'd melt so I could drink them in". 

The music slows down at this point, with descending guitar and drum figures but no drums; begetting the sound of a xylophone playing an ascending/descending line, expressing ambivalence. Is he going to mail a greeting or attend the wedding and indulge in that fantasy? After dwelling on this, the song picks back up again and recapitulates back to the first verse: 

I'll take the best of your bad moods and dress them up to make a better you, cause all the company calls amount to one paycheck.

He has decided his fate: looks like he will go after all and not only that, he will take this sentiment: to convince her that he's better for her and can make a "better you" out of her; all while at the wedding which he neither part of the "company" (theater term to refer to the actors that make up the play) nor is he paying for it.

Wedding Crashers, am I right? (copyright NY times)

Company Calls Epilogue follows immediately after its namesake, picking up from the narrator's resolve to act on his heart's drunken desire and to tie up the loose ends of its strings. With an electric guitar and a microphone with a delayed drunken reverb effect, the voice that rings through is both lucid and opaque. He quotes the line he sung in Company Calls: "Synapse to synapse, the possibility's thin" resolving the prediction that "possibilities will thin or fade", choosing the former. To further the unity of the concept album, the repeated phrase "synapse to synapse" seems remarkably close to For What Reason's "skin touching skin" and alludes to the "Absence follows" lyric after. Our narrator sings while at the wedding itself, using present tense to express "I'm dressed up for free drinks and family greetings on your wedding... date". His intentions were put into action, he did indeed take the plastic figures on their wedding cake but doesn't directly say that he's melted it, yet. He describes them as being "so real", despite being fake plastic. Is he doing the right thing? He also follows up more sentiments he wrote, addressing his initial decision to stay away: "And I kept a distance, the complications cloud". He describes how he received the invite as an email invite with a picture of "girls with pigtails" running from "little boys wearing bowties their parents bought". 

But with all this, he nevertheless is at the wedding, with the pre-chorus to chorus narrating: 

"Crashing through the parlor doors, what was your first reaction? Screaming, drunk, disorderly, I'll tell you mine. You were the one, but I can't spit it out when the date's been set. The white routine to be ingested inaccurately." 

Oh yes, he fully intends to melt those plastic figurines to "ingest [them] inaccurately", which is dark and indulgent but fully permissible in its cathartic clothing, driven by a mad passion for this one alluring girl; his own writing being used against him. More imagery and recapitulation of "synapse to synapse" comes in the second first while adding comments about how marriages don't normally end well: "people would turn to see who's making the racket. It's not the first time"... "when the casualty rate's near 100 percent, and there isn't a pension for second best or for hardly moving". He's airing out his pessimistic perception of how this whole thing will turn out, but is it for love anymore? Wasn't the narrator regretful of the relationship which largely wavered while he was in it? What did the Employment Pages or Little Fury Bugs accomplish if not to help him recognize that the relationship wasn't as he thought it was? But even if the lyrics say so, the music disagrees and paints these emotions in ruinous beauty. The pre-chorus chorus lines repeat over and over after this, ending with a repeated guitar riff on G, which feels like it wants to go somewhere but it doesn't, instead the whole band (drums, bass and acoustic guitar) and a piano (that sounds like the xylophone from the previous song) dwell with the motif building up to an A major and F minor, chords that do not resolve the song but rather give a feeling of defeat and resignation after putting a lot of effort and the frustration that comes along with it.

The band drops out and we're left with a lo-fi acoustic guitar playing the chorus and a filter on the voice, the haunting delay removed, showing a unity between intentions; singing purely with a slight alteration to the lyric– instead of "you were", we get:

"You are the one, but I can't spit it out when the date's been set. The white routine to be ingested inaccurately"

"An homage to the one the narrator lost"

Almost like an epilogue to the epilogue (or perhaps the ending credits song), the next track is No Joy in Mudville. This song begins with a xylophone, bass, slow kick-drum pattern and guitar introduction. Going full on break-up interpretation (ignoring the references to Lou Reed's musical career), this song situates itself as an homage to the one the narrator lost. More with the very specific lyric-writing, this song indulges in what the narrator sees as the city of New York in the eyes of his ex and the influence she had on it as "the king of a gloomy disruption that surfaced when you would sing". He seems to be retracing the steps of where she thought was important "to a brownstown up three flights of stairs" and "reading the pavement in every word you would speak". Again, this is one of those songs that are hard to maintain with the breakup interpretation. Another way to take this in the context of the album would be that the song seems to be aimed at "Lou Reed" and his influence on New York but see it as an allusion to his relationship with her. Not totally incomprehensible but not something that I can totally commit myself to. But nevertheless the lyrics are somewhat sweet "the overturned kick drum boom set the pace with incomparable cool, and if the tempo was lousy it was lost on all but you and your studies of fringe New York streets". Maybe there is some love and appreciation expressed lucidly after the catharsis of Company calls epilogue.

O-chem, anybody?

To tie it all off, the final track of We Have the Facts is Scientist Studies. Ben comes back to the setting he built on The Employment Pages, complementing the times of unemployment with the problems of rent and utilities: "Cold skin and bones and this latitude; we ain't paying until the heat comes through." and "Promises of payment were upon your shoulders constantly". This is another song that challenges the breakup interpretation, because I see it more directly as a song about how the band has committed itself to being their full-time occupation and also I believe Ben was an environmental science major ("but don't forget to entertain cause this is your first defense"). Although, there isn't any reason why they are mutually exclusive. The context drives the spirit which drives the content. In fact, this could be a sign that the narrator is looking more at the big picture of it all. He says "Four-year offense to the devoted type. I may have got an invitation, but I wasn't invited. But I thought that this meant something more than broken hearts and new addictions". Turning to college and the problems with rent, I think the person the narrator is addressing is himself, as he's turned to the arts as his defense. As the outro goes: "this is a first defense. This was a first defense. This is my last defense" (looks like some alpha-omega allusions played with). And these final lyrics to the album are topped off with a long held guitar chord, which then gets amplified with one tone that builds up to a deafening noise, held for about 10 seconds before it cuts off and the album ends. The clever context here is that this kind of feedback sound occurs after leaving your amplifier on after you strummed the last cord. It's as if the narrator has walked away from the music, leaving the feedback on before coming back to turn it off and end it for good. 

For me, this kind of intricacy that the band puts that allows for competing interpretations to hold true speaks of the universality of it. We can indulge into the concept album or listen to the songs on their own and relate to the songs from our own background. Music beckons the past, present and future and gathers it together to create a universal truth. I remember first listening to Title Track with headphones in after having listened to it on speakers. That lo-fi to hi-fi bit was insane. The song was catchy and I didn't even delve on the lyrics except for the ending outro. But also when I hear this song, I think of my own experiences and how they either do or do not measure up to this song as well as thinking of the intention behind the author as well. Listening to the album now at its 20th anniversary points to a future where I think there's always something to take and to give with this album moving forward. For me, and probably for many other fans, this album is timeless and something that should be celebrated, something to come and gather us all to listen in on the record that made the band who they are.